energy producing experiments

[Omnibus]

I reiterate, WM2D should be rejected outright for the purposes of this discussion, except for demonstrating where the center of mass is. No hesitation on that issue.

[mickegg]

Yes, I agree about the Atwood machine.....but thought a simple balanced lever(length of timber/bar) would be easier for us each to make.
Either apparatus will be acceptable.

If the experiment is performed, will we have data to show which version of events is reality.

I personally think that our time could be better used elsewhere, as our own experiences in life to date, should have taught us what the outcome will be.


Regards

Mick

[Omnibus]

The device has to be made very precisely in its entirety because the effect is cooperative. Modeling of parts of it won't do. This is one of the problems with, say, magnetic motors -- some think that if it appears that it works it's done and they are in a hurry to announce success to the world. Not so. Even 99.99% of it appearing to work is equal to 0% finished job. It's sort of a 'yes' or 'no' situation. There's no inbetween.

[mickegg]

Hi Fletcher
Re: your edit

I am not particularly interested in verifying WM2D at this point, but accept your methods to improve the output.

I am rather more interested to see if momentum will increase or decrease (for the case of rising and falling balanced masses in motion) when the overbalancing mass is constant but the balanced masses are varied in size.

Regards

Mick

[greendoor]

EDITED - it was a long day, and I said some crap in haste ...

[Fletcher]

Absolutely Mick - that's the crux - WM is of only academic interest, as I've said many times - the reality is the real world results & they will make or break the arguments put forward on this thread.

[greendoor]

EDITED: toys thrown out of cot, etc, etc

[Omnibus]

Absolutely Mick - that's the crux - WM is of only academic interest, as I've said many times - the reality is the real world results & they will make or break the arguments put forward on this thread.

Absolutely not. A flawed program such as WM2D cannot be of any interest let alone academic. Further, even it were not flawed it wouldn't be of much use for rigorous analysis because it works as a black bock whereby the underlying methods are not explicitly presented. The rigorous analysis requires very clear methodology where every step is out in the open. Such program to a great extent is AutoCAD. Analysis with AutoCAD proves the reality of perpetuum mobile.

[Michael]

Did I miss something? Fletcher and Omnibus agree regarding the end result of the atwood machine, and Fletcher is pretty well versed in energy equations so what is the root of the disagreement? Maybe I slept through that.

[Fletcher]

No disagreement Michael - you didn't miss anything - I wanted greendoor, pequaide et al to come up with a reliable real world experiment that could also be modeled in WM to compare, if possible - greendoor appears to have done that with results he wasn't prepared for, it seems - omnibus wants people to take another look at Abling's wheel based on his own logic - he doesn't have the skills to build a wheel with fine tolerances that he believes are necessary, yet he would rather trust his own math & reasoning than a software program with user idiosyncracies, that also have to be managed, & then can be reliable [in my experience].

Vosota vaco cowa [kia kaha] greendoor - no one said this quest would be easy.

[broli]

Fletcher the quest can be easy if you don't deal with people dragging you down. This is why this community accomplishes next to nothing compared to a open source software project. Sure the software people don't need a machine shop but at least they contribute and help each other out without having to deal with the shit storm. If I had a lab I would care less about these idiots. I just want to help pequide everyone else's opinion is muted.

You know what they say. "If you think you can do it better then do it". I think I'm going to open my own forum where people like omnibus have a life ban before even registering.

[Fletcher]

LOL broli - yeah, you do tend to develop a thick skin - a matter of survival - builders & WM users can operate side by side, be mutually beneficial even - a lot of the rhetoric could be cut down with a few robust experiments, & that's all I'm promoting.

[Omnibus]

@Fletcher,

could also be modeled in WM to compare, if possible

No, it isn’t possible to model the device in question with WM2d because WM2D is flawed. Like I said, WM2D can only be used to determine the center of mass and its position with respect to the axis of rotation. Nothing else.

it seems - omnibus wants people to take another look at Abling's wheel based on his own logic - he doesn't have the skills to build a wheel with fine tolerances that he believes are necessary, yet he would rather trust his own math & reasoning than a software program with user idiosyncracies, that also have to be managed, & then can be reliable [in my experience].

Undoubtedly, I must use my own math and reasoning and not yours. Mine is based on sound scientific argumentation while, as seen, yours is just handwaving. And, for sure I will not be using a flawed program (WM2D) no matter how much you push it as:

a software program with user idiosyncracies, that also have to be managed, & then can be reliable [in my experience]

No it isn’t reliable no matter how well it is managed and how much experience you claim to have with it. A flawed program such as WM2D is not a reliable program no matter how you try to twist it (manage it, in your lingo).

[Fletcher]

W_H_A_T_E_V_E_R ominbus.

[Fletcher]

Broli .. here is [what I think] an interesting see-saw comparison you might want to consider [try changing the values of components ?] - the sim is at optimal i.e. no frictions other than default values - I reduced the masses to 100 kg's & the yellow driver up to 10 kg's - if I hadn't it would take forever to move & arrive at 6 o'cl - I have used a default value of 0.0001 kg's for wheel body & parallelogram frames etc so that their inertia's don't factor majorly & distort things considerably - there is a slight difference in arrival time [& therefore velocity] because in the parallelogram example the blue masses are not being twisted while in rotation while they are for the rim wheel example, which changes the inertial characteristics a little.

N.B. we do know conclusively that any weight traveling in a circle under gravity will achieve the same velocity as a free weight dropped at the same vertical height, so at 6 o'cl they would both have the same velocity [assuming no frictional losses & all mass point masses at the rim].